Friends right now, but wait until Iran is gone, China will be the US's number 1 enemy. Remember the days before 9/11? China was the number 1 enemy. All of the ethnic Chinese people around the world were enemies of the US and its allies. According to a recent poll, Americans see Iran as enemy number 1 and China as enemy number 2 (http://news.yahoo.com/americans-think-iran-u-top-enemy-china-second-1708...). After 9/11, China was no longer an enemy, but a "friend". Uiger and Tibetan separatists in China were initially called "freedom fighters" by Western news agencies (jewish controlled of course) then after 9/11 they were suddenly called "terrorists," now they are being called "freedom fighters" again. And if Iran, the last remaining more powerful Muslim nation, falls, the US and Western press will go after China again. So, I would like to warn China for all our sakes. I hope China has something up its sleeves if it doesn't help Iran. If there are Chinese people here, please translate my message and place it on Chinese blogs. Thanks for reading and reblogging.

Xi’s visit to America, along with the following trip to Ireland and Turkish, is truly more meaningful than Chinese incumbent president Hu Jing-tao. His route contains both public and private affairs. He successfully shows his widesperad network of friend and his perfect means of integrated business and foreign affairs. He indeed DO better than Hu who horribly purchased Boeing plane last year.

This time, Xi’s itinerary, across his past memories, present extraordinaire and future prosperity, constructs the solid relationship of America and Europe with China on the base of widespread vision. Meanwhile, many Chinese media follows this trend reporting the couple of new China’s emperor and empress; for instance, China’s Newsweek with Huan-qiu network retrospected this golden couple last week, referring to Xi’s pure thinkings praised by Xi’s wife Peng Li-yuan, a singer along with the professor in Peking University.

As Eiffel1, one of this couple’s friend, said just before, these two indeed can proudly represent China rather than Li Ke-qiang of Chinese Communist Youth League (CCYL) in the aspect of the controllable ability of human resource while Li, my boss in the place of CCYL’s second leader, accepts some democratic notion of western style which leads to taking steady measure to exercise politics. Therefore, Xi may take practical or say efficient policies to reign in China.

His keen interests in Chinese people and his care of the indigenous experience in China’s south-eastern coast reflects on the visit to Iowa, where some Chinese entrepreneurs led by Xi, signed long-term contracts with local enterprises like Cargill Inc. and the Archer-Daniels- Midland Co. About two years ago, I bought one of their product in Taipei city, feeling very good. So I suggested that Beijing might use smarter strategies of choosing higher level of food supply from United States or other developed countries. To do so can balance the embarrassment of China-U.S. Trade. Also, American soybean costs somewhat more but it worths providing the better choice of Chinese health and gross economy.

According to NHK World’s interview with Tom Dvorchak, who had taken him in 27 years ago, when he was a senior official of an agricultural county in Hebei Province on a tour to learn US farming techniques, Dvorchak impressed him for his seriousness in trying to learn from US agricultural practices, also for his frank and amiable characteristic while staying at his home.

In addition, Xi talked of his one of habit, watching American movies like “Godfather”, which apparently affects Beijing’s many limitations on American entertainment. According to China's state-run Xinhua news agency, on Saturday China had agreed to accept a US complaint at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over trade barriers on films. On one side, the authority may cater Xi’s flavour; on the other side, Beijing wants to accept WTO’s suggestion improving interior moviemaker’s development by giving no impediment to foreigner movie.

His characteristic can reflect on another habit of watching Los Angeles’ Laker, NBA. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Xi is an NBA fan and especially of Kobe Bryant, the Lakers guard, the mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said. Besides, Li Shaode, chairman of China Shipping (Group) Co., the nation’s second-largest shipping line, accompanied Xi and the California officials for a tour of the company’s cargo terminal. After leaving Los Angeles, Xi will fly to Ireland for an official visit. He then travels to Turkey to meet with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara on Feb. 21 before returning to China.

Overall, Xi’s tour to America at this time is fundamentally beneficial to American people more enormously than Hu’s last time. And Xi has more flexible pose to show the new Chinese era coming, as the pop Chinese lyrics he humorously borrowed. In the next decade, we may see the side of dragon’s soft power rising up while enjoying the benefit of this propeller advancing in the world.

The visits of Hu and Xi to the US could not be compared. Ten years ago, China's economy was very much weaker than it is today. Now it is the second largest economy in the world with prospects of overtaking the US in due course. Despite all the China-bashing by US politicians, the White House knows full well the reality of the situation. Hence the response to Xi's visit was commensurate with China's present standing in the world.

Whatever the West may think of Hu's personality, historians will record that it was under his watch that China grew so dramatically during the past ten years. If Xi could emulate his performance in the next ten years, China would, indeed, be very fortunate.

Excuse me, the comparison of Xi and Hu refers to Xi's this time and "Hu's visit to America IN ABOUT ONE YEAR AGO" when HU BOUGHT BOEING PLANES, NOT 2002'S AFFAIR. But I have watched the review about your so-called visit to China rather than the horrible purchase case of Boeing in NHK World, msnbc.com and this report in Economist.

I don't know whether you mixed them together? And indeed, to compare Xi's visit to foreign countries at this time with Hu's visit ten years ago is also important, because the world is very attentive to every time's transition of China's Communist Party in Beijing. I have similar thought of your above consideration so I didn't put forward the story ten years ago. Yeah, if you mistake my comment, sorrowfully, you cannot say that these two or those two is improper for discussion. Thank you......

I don't want to derail this discussion, but lev. d. made a comment that should not go unanswered - about "tanks rolling over students and workers in Tiananmen Square".

I don't much care what "Lev" thinks, since I can guess his background and origin, but for the benefit of intelligent readers, there never was any "massacre" or anything else at Tiananmen Square in July 1989.

One of the good things that Wikileaks did was to publish all the cables from the US embassy in Beijing to Washington on that day. And their cables confirmed what the Chinese government had claimed all along - that the student sit-in ended peacefully and that nobody was injured or killed.

There was another incident in Bejing, far from the square, where rioters torched buses and burned quite a number of soldiers to death, and that was where the tanks were. It was totally unrelated to the students, but the Western media conflated the two events - even though they knew their reports were false - and for more than 20 years have led the world to believe China was a monster. It never happened.

Here is a documented photo-essay of the events in Beijing at that time. Some of the photos are unpleasant - bodies of burned soldiers . . .

In any case, here are the facts about Tiananmen Square. Please read this, and please don't continue to propagate this hateful fabrication.

Oh look you're back to spam your anti-Jewish and anti-American propaganda of a blog on the The Economist.

BTW the 'Tiananmen Square massacre' refers to what happened in ALL of Beijing in that week, and not just what happened in Tiananmen Square itself. If a few tens or a few hundreds of civilians are killed by the military then there's nothing wrong with labeling it a massacre.

But you're obviously not smart enough to realize this fact....

I suggest watching this documentary, as there is clear video evidence of civilians being shot in Beijing by the military.

Soldiers in Beijing shot at unarmed protesters, and everyone 30+ years or older in China and every overseas Chinese understands this very well. Even the CPC understands this well.

This guys is actually defending what happened in Tiananmen, with mostly erroneous information. He shows a few pictures of burned bodies and expect people to believe that the pictures are pictures of burned soldiers via terrorism while offering no proof.

Apparently you local Chinese are so desperate for a white guy to say anything pro-China that you're willing to gobble up his lies. Very sad...

Nobody in China, not even CPC, actually defends what happened. Everyone acknowledges that innocent unarmed people were shot. I'm not sure if you're a local Chinese, Taiwanese, or overseas, but if you go to China and talk to higher up members of the CPC in private about the issue, then they fully acknowledge that Tiananmen was handled very poorly.

It's very sad to see local uneducated ordinary Chinese take such a strong liking to watchingchina's propaganda for no other reason that he's anti-America and pro-China.

Good thing the CPC hasn't been replaced by an uneducated angry nationalistic mob yet huh? watchingchina is the perfect example for why democracy would not work in the China today.

So basically what I'm saying is that watchingchina has two groups of followers: the poor and uneducated local Chinese who hate America or the West in general because they do not have the credentials to obtain Western visas, or the overseas Chinese who are discriminated against in the West.

These people follow watchingchina's propaganda not because they're factually correct (they're not, and his arguments usually consist of nothing but logical fallacies), but because his propaganda is seeming pro-China and anti-America.

But of course both groups of people are complete irrelevant. If you're weak enough to be discriminated against in the West then you're probably not capable enough to climb the CPC ladders back home. The poor/undereducated locals are also completely irrelevant for obvious reasons.

Good thing huh? In fact if watchingchina was in China and make himself known as the author of bearcanada, then he would probably be arrested and deported for spreading propaganda that runs contrary to the CPC's.

Look bottom line is that what you overseas Chinese who are discriminated against in the Wset think really doesn't matter.

You have apparently lost track with what's actually going on in your mother country so you gobble up any anti-Western and pro-China propaganda you can find in the West. When was the last time you've actually been to China?

FYI many of the Beida and Tsinghua students who were at Tiananmen (not necessarily the student leaders) are now high up in the CPC. So do you see why they concur with the West that the Tiananmen protest movement was very poorly handled?

I was in college at that time. I remember one day in April 1989 I was reading the campus newspaper and there was a short article saying that a certain Chinese Communist party official, Hu Yaobang, has just died. I remember I was a little bit surprised and impressed at my campus newspaper because unless you are a sinologist, not many people have heard of Hu Yaobang. I remember thinking at the time that this is not good because Hu Yaobang was a beloved party official but he was sacked by Deng Xiaoping for reasons murky at the time (still murky to this day). Hu Yaobang was beloved because he has a reputation of being clean (uncorrupted) and sympathetic to the students. But here he was, met an untimely death while his name is still tarnished. So there was a huge sentiment that great injustice has been done to this man. As I had foreseen, things starting to happen. From what I read in the newspaper, people start smashing little bottles on the street. (A reference to Deng Xiaoping because Xiaoping in Chinese also sounds like 'little bottle'.)

I don't know why you so so focus on what happened in Tiananmen. Even in this case there were many people(protesters/soldiers)who lost their lives/got hurt. But why not you say something about those unarmed Chinese people who were killed by Japanese soldiers during the World War II?? Yes, I'm one of the ordinary massively people in China. I'm local Chinese. I'm also lived in Canada for two years. I met a person who just likes you, just can not let go.
Anyway, I love my country. I think that we all need to forgive the past and move on.
LOVE AND PEACE~~

Hyperspacer, that's exactly correct. The photos appeared briefly in China, and were published in Taiwan. The Western media had access to those photos and to the real story.

As Jay Mathews, Washington Post bureau chief in Beijing at the time, wrote, "Earnshaw notes how a photo of a Chinese soldier strung up and burned to a crisp was (deliberately) withheld by Reuters. Dramatic Chinese photos of solders incinerated or hung from overpasses have yet to be shown by Western media. Photos of several dead students on a bicycle rack at the barricade are more convincing."

Anyone who knows Beijing can see the photos that were published by the Western media, were not taken in Tiananmen Square but in an entirely different part of the city. The ones with the bicycle rack, and all the others, were in no way related to the square or the student protests; they involved the workers' dispute which was far from the Square.

Many dozens of soldiers died when their buses were torched with Molotov cocktails, and that was when the military went in with the tanks and APCs, but again, that was nowhere near the Square and was an unrelated incident - and there is evidence that these incidents, just as with the student protests, were instigated and financed by foreign sources. You can read between the lines.

But there are people, like this "Modern Trollia", who maliciously propagate these rumors, either with full knowledge that they are not true or, perhaps worse, not caring whether they are true. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, this person persists in claiming soldiers fired on students in the square. Even the US embassy in Beijing denied any deaths or injuries, but "Modern Trollia" apparently doesn't care about facts and is more interested in propagating a false narrative - what Bardamu referred to as "an emissary of hate".

Wendy, these people focus on Tiananmen Square, on the Wenzhou train crash, on anything that can be used to damage China's reputation. They do it because they are envious, because they don't understand anything about China, and because they don't like a "foreign" country rising up and challenging them.

They aren't looking for truth or justice. They just want to be right, and to be the King of the Hill.

And remember, there was no "massacre" in Tiananmen Square; the student protest ended peacefully and nobody was hurt or killed.

Many reporters published totally false stories at the time, many of them reporting "live from the Beijing Hotel", describing what they saw from their windows or balconies about all the students being killed.

But, as many other foreign reporters pointed out later, you CANNOT SEE Tiananmen Square from the Beijing Hotel, at least not the section where they claimed the soldiers were. It was all a lie, and it was all done deliberately.

You don't have to defend your country. Your government did not do anything wrong in June, 1989.

If you have not read this, here is the story of the events in Beijing on that day, with all the photos. And the article has links to the cables from the US embassy confirming these facts.

"The Chinese army killed many innocent people that night. Who cares exactly where the atrocities took place? That is an understandable, and emotionally satisfying, reaction. Many of us feel bile rising in our throats at any attempt to justify what the Chinese leadership and a few army commanders did that night."

I urge anyone interested to read the whole article rather than biased excerpts from a man with a hate complex:

I read the article and it seems watchingchina is right: no one died right at the square and it's not right to use the term "Tiananmen massacre", so what's your point? who is the man with a hate complex may I ask??

and the quote you quoted is: "A common response to this corrective analysis is: So what? The Chinese army killed many innocent people that night. Who cares exactly where the atrocities took place? That is an understandable, and emotionally satisfying, reaction. Many of us feel bile rising in our throats at any attempt to justify what the Chinese leadership and a few army commanders did that night."

why you deleted "a common response to this corrective analysis is"?? hmmmmm.............

No. What he does is take reports that say what happened in the square was misreported and extrapolate from these to assert that there was no massacre of any kind. This is a twisting of the truth. That's my point. The very Wikileaks cables and newspaper articles that he quotes to support his case say there WAS a massacre, if you bother to read them.

watchingchina wrote:

"One of the good things that Wikileaks did was to publish all the cables from the US embassy in Beijing to Washington on that day. And their cables confirmed what the Chinese government had claimed all along - that the student sit-in ended peacefully and that nobody was injured or killed."

Like everyone else around the world, I saw the television pictures of hundreds of soldiers running across Tiananmen Square to the sound of gunfire. Even if nobody was killed or injured in the square, it is absurd to say that the sit-in was ended "peacefully". The sit-in was ended by force, by the army.

I provided a link to the full article and advised people to read it, as I'm sure you noted.

Bardamu, I'm sorry to say this but your position is deliberately dishonest. You know what you are writing is untrue, as are all your slanderous accusations.

In the article link I posted, there is a full report of the workers' protest where the deaths occurred. Nothing was whitewashed.

And as the article stated, if you were a military commander and your soldiers were being burned to death by terrorists or thugs, you would open fire and defend them too.

There were never any photos of tanks and gunfire in the Square while students were there. None. And that has been confirmed by Jay Matthews who stayed in the Square all night, next to the statue, and who saw and heard everything. It was also confirmed by the Wikileaks cables - which also mentioned the workers' protest far from the square.

The article I posted is entirely factual, with facts that are not in dispute except by people like you.

You are deliberately mis-stating opinion-based commentary, to mislead readers and to slander any viewpoint you don't happen to share.

"Wendy, these people focus on Tiananmen Square, on the Wenzhou train crash, on anything that can be used to damage China's reputation".

No the world focuses on Tiananmen and Wenzhou because they really sucked, and even CPC openly admits that the latter sucked, and often openly criticized how it Wenzhou situation was handled in Chinese media. (Most of the CPC concurs in private that Tiananmen was very poorly handled too)

You're pathetic. If I ever see you in China I'll be sure to have you arrested and your passport banned from China. Seriously if you think Westerners here hate your propaganda just wait to see what the CPC does to you.

So you have private access to "most of the CPC" and you can confirm that "in private" they agree with you? Gee, well done.

As for your threat, I live in Shanghai so please come to see me anytime. And in addition to your intimate connections with the members of the CPC, you also are on a first-name basis with the police and the PSB? Really?

See your posts are so filled with logical fallacies and factually erroneous claims that it's usually not worth my time refuting them, but I'll give you one full response this time.
----
"So you have private access to "most of the CPC" and you can confirm that "in private" they agree with you? Gee, well done."
.
I never claimed to have access to "most of the CPC." I was sharing my experiences with most of the CPC whom I've talked to. See again you twist my words into factually something I didn't say and try to make a straw man argument out of it.
----
"And in addition to your intimate connections with the members of the CPC, you also are on a first-name basis with the police and the PSB? Really?"
.
It's not the PSB who arrest people like you; but rather the special police belonging to the propaganda ministry. And no I don't need to be on a first name basis with them to rat you out. I'd say the only reason you haven't been arrested is because nobody reads your blog and thus you have gone unnoticed in their monitoring system. They really do have bigger fish to fry than a website with a 1.8 million Alexa ranking.
----
"And I don't much care how much "Westerners" "hate" my "propaganda", but then you don't speak for them, do you?"
.
Again you twist my words into something I never said. I never claimed to speak for Westerners but rather it's obvious that they hate your propaganda because of all the angry responses you get when you spam them.

Just FYI, all ranking PSB people are members of the CPC, so the PSB is a part of the CPC and not a separate entity as you assume.

Also the PSB is mostly useless, and China has a few of its own versions of America's FBI. Ever see those unmarked and unlicensed plated black BMW 7 series driving around Shanghai? Yea those are the real police...

If you translate your blog into Chinese and ACTUALLY obtain those 100,000 viewers per day, then I don't even have to rat you out. You would rat yourself out very easily. But of course you cannot read/write Chinese and nobody will ever read your blog and I probably will never run into you in Shanghai, so I think you're safe....

As to being unnoticed, my guess is they must know very well who and where I am. It may interest you to know that my website has always been fully accessible from inside China, notwithstanding all the content on what you would call 'forbidden' topics like Tiananmen Square, democracy, freedoms, human rights, the opium trade . . .

And as for the "angry responses", let's see. We have Bardamu (who is a real piece of work), Bismark, and then you - Bardamu's tail. I assume you enjoy being wagged. But that's it. My posts don't arouse controversy from anyone but you three. But then, you're sane and the rest of the world is crazy. Right?

Very funny. But I am waiting for you to fulfil your threat to "rat me out" and have me arrested and my passport "banned". Please proceed.

"As to being unnoticed, my guess is they must know very well who and where I am. It may interest you to know that my website has always been fully accessible from inside China, notwithstanding all the content on what you would call 'forbidden' topics like Tiananmen Square, democracy, freedoms, human rights, the opium trade . . ."

Again the only reason why your website has slipped the screening process is because nobody reads it. With a 1.8 million Alexa ranking they don't even bother with people like you.

"Very funny. But I am waiting for you to fulfil your threat to "rat me out" and have me arrested and my passport "banned". Please proceed."

Well see again you twist my rhetoric. I made no threat (well a tiny one) by rhetorically saying that if I ever see you in China I will rat you out, but obviously you're not smart enough to tell the difference between rhetoric and an actual threat. Obviously there is little chance that I'll run into you in China, and honestly you're not worth my effort to try to go through CPC circles to actually have you arrested, so I might just punch you instead.

Even more hilarious. The Public Security Bureau is in no way "a part of the Communist Party". It's a law enforcement agency tasked with immigration and entry-exit. There is NO requirement for staff to be members of the CPS, and I have never met one who was.

And yes, it is indeed a "separate entity", you dolt. And it is far from "useless".

I'm sorry to say this, but you are behaving like a small child, making up little stories just so you can be "right", and having no idea what you are talking about.

And FYI, there are NO series 7 BMWs anywhere in the Shanghai Police Department, "real" police, or any other kind. And in any case, government officials drive Audis, not BMWs. If you live in China, you would know that. And even they have license plates.

And FYI, much of my website content IS in Chinese.

And please don't let me down now. I really want you to "rat me out", and have me arrested and my passport "banned". After all your threats, you can't quit on me now.

"It's a law enforcement agency tasked with immigration and entry-exit. There is NO requirement for staff to be members of the CPS, and I have never met one who was."

There is no official requirement in the same sense that China also officially has an independent judiciary, but everyone knows that both the PSB and the judiciary are controlled by the CPC. Also which members of the PSB have you talked to? The guys who stamp your passport at the airport?

"And FYI, there are NO series 7 BMWs anywhere in the Shanghai Police Department, "real" police, or any other kind."

I honestly do not know whether you're truly unaware or just blatantly lying to maintain your position.

"And please don't let me down now. I really want you to "rat me out", and have me arrested and my passport "banned". After all your threats, you can't quit on me now."

Again stop taking my rhetoric excessively literally and twisting my works ok? Again if I ever see you IRL I'd rather just punch you.

My post speaks for itself. Anyone can read that article and see just how misleading your comments are. As for hate, well I just can't compete with your Anti-Semitic writings, which are beneath contempt.

BTW I only know about those unmarked BMW 7 series because I have a friend who actually drives one on the weekends. (well she borrows it from her parents who work in the PDCPC)
.
The ordinary mainland people, probably the ones you hang out with, know very little about the inner workings of the CPC and why stuff in China happens the way they do.
.
You seem to know even less, except that you take the ordinary-mainlander view, add some research, turn it into English, and pretend that you know everything about China. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, I suggest taking a trip to Shanghai's Jiaotong University or Fudan and talking to the professors there (most of whom belonging to the CPC) and see what their views are. (if they're willing to talk to you)

Watchingchina, Thank you for all your kind words~ I do care about China's reputation. That's why I don't like people such as "Modern anti-American Troll" who always focuses on the dark side of my country. He was right that I'm an ordinary local Chinese. But he was wrong about the uneducated part. I think I was raised very well and I do have a PdD degree. So I know what's going on here. You have my support.

So you agree that TAM was the "dark side of your country" and disagree with that white racist devil in his claim that TAM was a non-issue. Glad to know.
.
In the future I suggest avoiding his propaganda because the only reason you follow it is because there are is too much anti-China bias in the West and he's just an exception. Two wrongs do not make a right.

BTW you're not only rabidly pro-China but also rabidly anti-India (mostly this), anti-America, and anti-Tibet. Not only do you have these extreme biases, but you ignore facts and spew your own logical fallacies to argue with people on TE to establish your views.

You sound like one of those Chinese people who emigrated to the West at an advanced age and so were never able to fit into Western culture and your pro-China and anti-Everyone-else bias just keeps growing stronger and stronger. If you joined the CPC today you would be on the far right of it, even far more conservative than Bo Xilai.

I've met sooo many people like you in my life and really you just need to stop being angry at everything. It really doesn't do yourself any good... I'm glad that people like you are dying out not only in the CPC but also in global politics.

Also to answer one of your previous points of why the CPC is not a lot more aggressive toward India as you would like: the CPC today is mainly ruled by privileged princelings who led a relatively comfortable life since the Deng reforms, so they have no reason to be angry like you are. The 6th and 7th generation ones are increasing educated in the US and UK, and so have even less of a reason to be angry.

Ordinary Chinese are also benefiting from their quickly-increasing wealth so they don't have much reason to be angry either. If you go on Sina Weibo, India almost never show up in the trending topics.

So maybe you should join the rest of your former-compatriots and be less angry yourself?

[ Bardamu in reply to watchingchina February 20th, 08:52
Jay Mathews also wrote:
"The Chinese army killed many innocent people that night. Who cares exactly where the atrocities took place? That is an understandable, and emotionally satisfying, reaction. Many of us feel bile rising in our throats at any attempt to justify what the Chinese leadership and a few army commanders did that night."

I urge anyone interested to read the whole article rather than biased excerpts from a man with a hate complex:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php?page=1]

I am not disputing your claim that many innocent people were killed that night but I have heard similar arguments in different occasions by Neo-Nazis and Japanese revisionists pointing to the massive innocent civilians killed in the bombing of Dresden and atom bombings in Japan as the proofs of the immorality of the Allied Powers. Naturally, such arguments completely ignored what provoked such bombings and the far greater and far more severe atrocities Nazi Germany and militarist Japan had committed. Sounds familiar?

Of course, you and I had been through this before:

{ [Bardamu wrote:
Jun 12th 2011 6:49 GMT
watchingchina wrote:

The usual deranged, hate-filled ramblings.

There's no answer to a man who so consistently misinterprets the world, who can look the evidence squarely in the face and conclude that it means exactly the opposite of what it is telling him.

All the answers to your massacre denials can be found in the articles you yourself posted on your web site. I quote:

"Instead, the cables show that Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre of Beijing as they fought their way towards the square from the west of the city."

SOLDIERS OPENED FIRE ON PROTESTERS

"In 2009, James Miles, who was the BBC correspondent in Beijing at the time, admitted that he had "conveyed the wrong impression" and that "there was no massacre on Tiananmen Square. Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops [ ...] There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre"."

THERE WAS A BEIJING MASSACRE

What difference does it make that people were killed outside the square but not inside the square? Does that make it morally more defensible?

It is not in dispute, and never has been, that soldiers opened fire on protesters. Whether there was a case for military intervention, given the disintegration of law and order in Beijing in the days leading up to June 4, is a matter of legitimate debate. To deny that soldiers did open fire is a Big Lie worthy of Goebbels.

I'll tell you what is truly a "reprehensible slander": it is the description of the Chinese student movement as "largely controlled by the CIA". Many central government leaders including Premier Zhao Ziyang regarded the students as patriotic. Zhao pleaded with the students to leave the square, and paid with his job and his freedom when the decision on military action went against him.

Was Zhao working for the CIA? In your world, probably. Nothing bad ever happens in China, no flicker of opposition or discontent, but the evil Americans are behind it, right?

Your posts and your dismal web site really require no answer. They give people everything they need to make a judgement about you and your idiotic opinions. I daresay they have.]

Not that I want to get into your feud with watchingchina, but there was more than just a massacre. I was also following the events in 1989. I vividly remember seeing a picture in the papers of the charred body of a soldier hung outside an APC or something. That, I think, was not done by the students but, maybe, by some disgruntled workers. If I remember correctly, that happened BEFORE the soldiers opened fire, which seems to be collaborated by Cunningham's article given by John2003. In any case, the students seemed to have been taken for a ride, either by the commies or by someone else.

What you said is not wrong but, as usual, you choose to ignore some "inconvenient truths".

Devil's

-----------

[Bardamu wrote:
Jun 14th 2011 12:51 GMT

Another day, another non-sequitur from Devil's Advocate. Mate, I'm not ignoring anything, inconvenient or otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that the articles watchingchina has posted on his website, which he says prove there was no massacre, actually say there WAS a massacre. Has he actually read them?]

non-sequitur or not is up to you to decide but the fact that that event was closely related to the massacre is not. If there was indeed a massacre, one would want to know how it came about and where the real responsibility lay-- Except for those whose true intention was to take the massacred students for a ride.}

Thanks for reposting my comment from an earlier thread. I had forgotten writing this, but I think it expresses the issue rather eloquently and I feel quite proud reading it again.

Not for the first time, I have some trouble understanding the point you're trying to make. What are the inconvenient truths I'm ignoring? I don't have a problem acknowledging that atrocities were committed by the demonstrators too. Why is that inconvenient for me? How did the massacre come about and where did the real responsibility lie? You insinuate that I am ignoring something important, but you don't say what it is, so I don't know your opinion on that.

watchingchina wrote that no massacre took place in Tiananmen Square and therefore no massacre took place. Of course, we all know that a massacre took place. I suppose one could argue that the massacre was provoked by agents provocateurs attacking the soldiers. The difficulty with this is that we know for a fact that the Chinese leadership ordered the army to clear Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. The army had tanks, rifles and machine guns. The demonstrators had molotov cocktails at best.

I hope we can all agree that what happened in 1989 was a tragedy for China, and that it would have been better for everyone if the demonstration had ended peacefully. Denying what happened doesn't help anybody.

[Bardamuin reply to Devils 23rd, 15:24
Thanks for reposting my comment from an earlier thread. I had forgotten writing this, but I think it expresses the issue rather eloquently and I feel quite proud reading it again.

Not for the first time, I have some trouble understanding the point you're trying to make. What are the inconvenient truths I'm ignoring? I don't have a problem acknowledging that atrocities were committed by the demonstrators too. Why is that inconvenient for me? How did the massacre come about and where did the real responsibility lie? You insinuate that I am ignoring something important, but you don't say what it is, so I don't know your opinion on that.

watchingchina wrote that no massacre took place in Tiananmen Square and therefore no massacre took place.]

If that is the conclusion he had made, I don't agree with it.

[ Of course, we all know that a massacre took place. I suppose one could argue that the massacre was provoked by agents provocateurs attacking the soldiers.]

That's precisely what I am arguing about. So, why not include that in your judgement on the Chinese government's actions?

[ The difficulty with this is that we know for a fact that the Chinese leadership ordered the army to clear Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3.]

Yes, the army did move in and why not? Tiananmen Square was occupied for more than one month and the students refused even to compromise after several pleads from Zhao, Wen, etc in person. The initial batch of troops sent in were young unarmed soldiers, who were turned back by the occupying students. I was following the event on TV and saw that. The Chinese leadership clearly hoped to sort the problem out without bloodshed.

[ The army had tanks, rifles and machine guns. The demonstrators had molotov cocktails at best.]

The "best" that molotov cocktails could do was the appearance of charred bodies of soldiers hung up on various structures and vehicles. That was certainly more terrible that what the bullets of AK-47 could do. AND that happened BEFORE rifle bullets killed anyone.

"It was reported that some demonstrators earlier heard the troops were going to be armed (because the soldiers were attacked already?), some non-student demonstrators started looting weapons from military trucks, burn military vehicles at Cuiweilu (翠微路) about 10 kilometers west to Tiananmen square, soldiers were shot, attacked, burned and stoned to death, a wounded one was pulled out of ambulance and beaten to death, at this point the soldiers were still not allowed to defend themselves. Two soldiers were stoned to death when their truck got stuck in the middle of a road, see the following video. The troops were blocked and attacked, at this point the army ordered the soldier to open fire, this was at Muxidi, 5 kilometers west of Tiananmen sqaure. "

[I hope we can all agree that what happened in 1989 was a tragedy for China, and that it would have been better for everyone if the demonstration had ended peacefully. Denying what happened doesn't help anybody.]

I agree that that was a tragedy for China. I can even agree that the Chinese government had made mistakes there. What I cannot agree is to ONLY talk about the casualties of the protestors (some might actually be rioters) without examining how and why the events unfolded that way.

[Bardamuin reply to Devils 23rd, 15:24
Thanks for reposting my comment from an earlier thread. I had forgotten writing this, but I think it expresses the issue rather eloquently and I feel quite proud reading it again.

Not for the first time, I have some trouble understanding the point you're trying to make. What are the inconvenient truths I'm ignoring? I don't have a problem acknowledging that atrocities were committed by the demonstrators too. Why is that inconvenient for me? How did the massacre come about and where did the real responsibility lie? You insinuate that I am ignoring something important, but you don't say what it is, so I don't know your opinion on that.

watchingchina wrote that no massacre took place in Tiananmen Square and therefore no massacre took place.]

If that is the conclusion he had made, I don't agree with it.

[ Of course, we all know that a massacre took place. I suppose one could argue that the massacre was provoked by agents provocateurs attacking the soldiers.]

That's precisely what I am arguing about. So, why not include that in your judgement on the Chinese government's actions?

[ The difficulty with this is that we know for a fact that the Chinese leadership ordered the army to clear Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3.]

Yes, the army did move in and why not? Tiananmen Square was occupied for more than one month and the students refused even to compromise after several pleads from Zhao, Wen, etc in person. The initial batch of troops sent in were young unarmed soldiers, who were turned back by the occupying students. I was following the event on TV and saw that. The Chinese leadership clearly hoped to sort the problem out without bloodshed.

[ The army had tanks, rifles and machine guns. The demonstrators had molotov cocktails at best.]

The "best" that molotov cocktails could do was the appearance of charred bodies of soldiers hung up on various structures and vehicles. That was certainly more terrible that what the bullets of AK-47 could do. AND that happened BEFORE rifle bullets killed anyone.

"It was reported that some demonstrators earlier heard the troops were going to be armed (because the soldiers were attacked already?), some non-student demonstrators started looting weapons from military trucks, burn military vehicles at Cuiweilu (翠微路) about 10 kilometers west to Tiananmen square, soldiers were shot, attacked, burned and stoned to death, a wounded one was pulled out of ambulance and beaten to death, at this point the soldiers were still not allowed to defend themselves. Two soldiers were stoned to death when their truck got stuck in the middle of a road, see the following video. The troops were blocked and attacked, at this point the army ordered the soldier to open fire, this was at Muxidi, 5 kilometers west of Tiananmen sqaure. "

[I hope we can all agree that what happened in 1989 was a tragedy for China, and that it would have been better for everyone if the demonstration had ended peacefully. Denying what happened doesn't help anybody.]

I agree that that was a tragedy for China. I can even agree that the Chinese government had made mistakes there. What I cannot agree is to ONLY talk about the casualties of the protestors (some might actually be rioters) without examining how and why the events unfolded that way.

* World police
* Middle East meddler
* Most obese country
* Largest number of citizens in jails
* The only country that attempt to "spread democracy"

I don't think China or any other rising country, at least in BRIC-S would be stupid enough to attempt that the US have already done. Why would they anyways...these things aren't good and in doing some of the things on here, it's fanning the flames of hate from the countries that it's interfering with and the global community. =.=

One last thing, no one needs the US's approval to rise or fall, so this article is a bit bias in that regard. Why would a rising country's leader take another failing country's leader seriously with all the hate for it in the American media? Makes no sense.

Let me repeat what I posted a while ago:
It seems like yesterday (only 11 years ago) that Bill Clinton and the US Congress granted China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization).
Clinton said: "They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships there. They allow us to put our own parts there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China any more. This a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences"
He was dead wrong (and Clinton is supposed to be one of the "smarter" Americans lol)
See:http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615/WTO.html
for a discussion about the adverse effects that "cosying up" to China has on the US economy, in particular jobs.

American car manufacturer don't produce cheap parts, it is not competitve enough. Wake up
When they don't buy from China, then buy from somewhere else, that cost up American jobs too.
Are you so stupid.

Friends right now, but wait until Iran is gone, China will be the US's number 1 enemy. Remember the days before 9/11? China was the number 1 enemy. All of the ethnic Chinese people around the world were enemies of the US and its allies. According to a recent poll, Americans see Iran as enemy number 1 and China as enemy number 2 (http://news.yahoo.com/americans-think-iran-u-top-enemy-china-second-1708...). After 9/11, China was no longer an enemy, but a "friend". Uiger and Tibetan separatists in China were initially called "freedom fighters" by Western news agencies (jewish controlled of course) then after 9/11 they were suddenly called "terrorists," now they are being called "freedom fighters" again. And if Iran, the last remaining more powerful Muslim nation, falls, the US and Western press will go after China again. So, I would like to warn China for all our sakes. I hope China has something up its sleeves if it doesn't help Iran. If there are Chinese people here, please translate my message and place it on Chinese blogs. Thanks for reading and reblogging.

As a Chinese man living in Beijing, I felt ashamed of myself when I read that Xi accepted it, which ever way he was treated the first few times when he visited the US, because I complained of the noise etc while I was studying in Pennsylvania. As I understand it, he is a man that can take a lot of beating, whether he is eventually swayed by your opinion.
I also had encounters with his wife, the singer Peng. I should say that the couple are pretty decent. And that they are well-informed about a lot of issues in China and the world. The only problem is that I've been pretty floppy as far as my political life is concerned and have never really got inflated. So unless the Xis have an emergency case, I would prefer to continue to engage in my own profession and stay apolitical.

I wonder if the US will gradually sink into a cold war with China. It must be difficult for the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) to envisage that China will pass the US as the world´s biggest economy within what - 20 years. And like Marx said, economic power is the basis for political and military cloud. I´m sure that some analysts in the Pentagon are familiar with Marx´s writings. I wonder, why one never comes across US scolding of Germany for having equally big a trade surplus as China in recent years.
As for a naval base in Darwin, it tells us more about Australia than the US. Obviously the US is on its knees economically, experiencing its greatest depression since the nineteen thirtees. In Europe, such circumstances nourish fascist sentiment, so no wonder that in the US the MIC is digging down its heels.
As for Australia, it seems to have forgotten about becoming an Asian country and by receiving a US naval base it is sending out a message of being firmly a white, western Anglo-Saxon power, subservient of the US. Is that really the message Australia needs to broadcast? After all, Australians are basicly a people of oppressed ethnic minorities from the British Isles, with various other ingredients from Europe (and elsewhere of late). I wonder if the old Australian anti-colonial sentiment welcomes this - stick to the Anglo Saxon colonial powers´ - manifestation?
Besides, for Australians it is Indonesia which is a bigger worry than China, populous as it is and ever expanding its Javaean core population further off within the Archipelago. When Indonesia has finished colonizing Sumatra, Sulavezi, Borneo and New-Guinea, Papua New-Guinea would be next. After all, Indonesia did, not so long ago, annex East-Timor although being pushed away from there, for as long as that lasts. Indonesia is eleven times more populous than Australia, but covers much less area of land. Ofcourse much of Australia is desert, but still - one wonders.

There is more to being a global superpower than just economics and trade. It's always disappointuing to see that the economists always reduces the issue to GDP growth and all that.

The new world order will be a lot more complex than anything the world has known before. i live in Africa and everyday i see young people (the ones that will still be around when the new order finally arrives, opening up and seeking new ideas. Most people in the world want freedom, security, and opportunity. That was the promise of America. And even if that promise seems to be waning today, i cannot say that China has replaced it, or that China ever will.

Every year America launches a Visa Lottery and people all over the world scramble to become american citizens. American still stands for promise in the eys of millions of people.

People may admire China for it's prowess of the past decades, but we are not fooled. We all know that the Chinese are only out for what they can get!

[ InCotonou 1 hour 13 mins ago
There is more to being a global superpower than just economics and trade. It's always disappointuing to see that the economists always reduces the issue to GDP growth and all that.

The new world order will be a lot more complex than anything the world has known before. i live in Africa and everyday i see young people (the ones that will still be around when the new order finally arrives, opening up and seeking new ideas. Most people in the world want freedom, security, and opportunity. That was the promise of America. And even if that promise seems to be waning today, i cannot say that China has replaced it, or that China ever will.

Every year America launches a Visa Lottery and people all over the world scramble to become american citizens. American still stands for promise in the eys of millions of people.

People may admire China for it's prowess of the past decades, but we are not fooled. We all know that the Chinese are only out for what they can get!]

"We all know that the Chinese are only out for what they can get!"

EXACTLY!!! But then what do the Africans want to get? American visas? I don't think China could have got to its present position if all that the Chinese want to get are American visas.

Most people in the world want freedom, security, and opportunity. That was the promise of America. And even if that promise seems to be waning today, i cannot say that China has replaced it, or that China ever will.
----------------

Great Britain was like that before, wasn't it ?
What opportunity? Finance Crisis or tons of debt ?

"Chinese are only out for what they can get!"
Is hardwork to have a decent and good life like American are so bad and evil !!

Many rich American immigrant are regret to have a US passport now, they try to quit but too late.

(1) Economics is not only about GDP growth and Trade, its only a field of economics called Macro-Economics and International Trade respectively.
(2) There is a very in-depth study on freedom, security and opportunity and the field is called Development Economics and stalwarts include Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz etc.
(3) China has always been criticized in development economics for poor human rights because China is not a democracy also corruption levels are significant. But highlighted in macroeconomics for the amazing growth rate. For instance we remember how America tried to convince China to appreciate the Yuan, China holds substantial fraction of dollar bills.
(4) America has always advocated social security which is great, but he have seen how it caused the housing bubble and global crisis, hence a question on sustainability.
I agree China can never replace the US because China is not a democracy, but I disagree that Economics only concentrates on GDP and Trade.

I agree China can never replace the US because China is not a democracy, but I disagree that Economics only concentrates on GDP and Trade.
-----------------
China will not replace USA as world military power and world police, but economically may be "YES". Why spend so much on police the world!! "White man burden"
BTW it has nothing to do with democracy, but capitalism and industrialization .

I say democracy because China gets work done forcefully, if you dont agree you get shot. They follow the Communist model, a model for labour, but there are no human rights, Karl Marx had predicted fall of capitalism but today China's biggest trade partner is the model country of capitalism. But Is America following actual Capitalism?? It's "crony" Capitalism. And if it has nothing to do with democracy, think of US as a non-democratic country, I dont think the picture remains the same. And a large responsibility of democracy is the right to freedom, security and opportunity .

"And a large responsibility of democracy is the right to freedom, security and opportunity ."

Welcome to the freedom of world CCTV and opportunity for the 1%.
Before communist CPC govern in China, the Kaiser said what he want, when you don't agree you are dead.

Democracy!! Did you vote for Iraq war? Do you agreed with the war at all?

Do you think China is still communist? Really, they followed model of labour? There is really so good human-right in the states? What about Guantanamo prisoners. They do not have human right. No, those are just sub-human!! You should grant them all US green-card and give them at least 1 million dollars compensation for their injustice.

China is in the industrial phase just like Europe and States 150 years ago.

In case if you haven't caught up, China is not a communist country. It's not capitalist either. Perhaps "Chinese Imperial Market Socialism."

China does not follow a forced model of labor by any stretch of the imagination. Non-farmers are employed between the private sector and public sector. The public sector operates like any other highly regulated market economy except that all major corporations and companies have Party Cells. The state sector is not particularly different (especially because state-owned enterprises are profit driven). In either case, people work for a pay check and the opportunity for advancement. Workers are driven by profit motive, not fear; especially because most of them have family farms in the countryside they could go back to if they didn't want to work in a city.

"And a large responsibility of democracy is the right to freedom, security and opportunity."

The USA certainly has more political freedom than China does, but for the other two the correlation is not there. Rapid economic growth makes China today an enormous soure of opportunity. The only obstacle is the enormous educational gulf between the rural areas and the cities. Even the CCP doesn't restrict opportunities because anyone who is able to make the cut can join the CCP; they recruit top students all over the country. Security has nothing to do with democracy. It is the responsibility of any functioning country to gurantee the security of its citizens. In this regard China outperforms the USA. China IS much safer than the USA with much less violent crime and street crime.

True I am a back-dated person in comparison to you, but what little I wanted to stress is that China is actually communist no more because then they would not be able to trade with a capitalist country in principle, which has been an engine of growth for the Chinese. But I also know there the rights of citizens are highly curbed. Non-violent Tibetian monks are setting themselves ablaze, China trying to dictate India not to allow the Dalai Lama. How liberal China is can be read at http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Concerns-Raised-About-Human-Rights-D...

True I am a back-dated person in comparison to you, but what little I wanted to stress is that China is actually communist no more because then they would not be able to trade with a capitalist country in principle, which has been an engine of growth for the Chinese. But I also know there the rights of citizens are highly curbed. Non-violent Tibetian monks are setting themselves ablaze, China trying to dictate India not to allow the Dalai Lama. How liberal China is can be read at
--------------------

When you lost in a arguement, don't bring up another topic.
1. China is no more communist and China has been always capitalist and doing business in CHina and outside China. That is capitalist, but not in a modern term.
2. Tibetan Monks and Nuns burned themselves, not Tibetan people. It is illegal by Chinese law as well as by Buddhist regulations to burn/kill any life. They are NOT deserved to be Buddhist instead Terrorists !!
3. India use Dalai Lama as a chess stone and soon they will realize Dalai Lama will be a obstacle.

I didn't want to call you a "back-dated person", but when you said that in CHina "if you don't agree you get shot" is extremely far removed fromt the truth. You are probably partially right about the motivation for allowing people more personal freedom, but allowing more freedom also helps the CCP hold on to power because by limiting hostility against them, and to an extent most the CCP did not approve of the totalitarianism under Mao.

I'm an American who has lived in China for years. I recognize there is not as much freedom here as in the USA; but "highly curbed" is an exaggeration. I would never use the term "liberal" to describe China; "Imperial" seems to be the best fit.

The tensions and troubles in Tibet are far removed from the lives of 99% of the population. It is hardly representative of the lives of ordinary people.

1. "China has been always capitalist". Correction: China has been capitalist "with Chinese characteristics" for maybe thirty-odd years. Before that, China was very Communist. "That is capitalist, but not in a modern term." I think what you mean is that China now exercises state capitalism rather than a free-for-all version of American capitalism.

2. Chinese law only prohibits and makes illegal the inflicting of violence upon other people. Monks and nuns setting fire to themselves is not illegal.

Terrorism in China is defined as:

"Activities that severely endanger society that have the goal of creating terror in society, endangering public security, or threatening state organs and international organizations and which, by the use of violence, sabotage, intimidation, and other methods, cause or are intended to cause human casualties, great loss to property, damage to public infrastructure, and chaos in the social order, as well as activities that incite, finance, or assist the implementation of the above activities through any other means. (Decision, art. 2.)"http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402874_text

Please show how people setting fire to themselves constitutes terrorism under the above definition of such.

China has a long history, modern China govern by CPC only over 60 years. So China was always captialist, buy and sell are business. But Capitalist in modern term will be globalization, MNC, raise money by public offering shares, supply at demand etc. So China in history was not a modern term of capitalist. That is what I meant.

No countries consider self-mord is legal, and such a action is terrorist action. Your link proved what I said.
1. severely endanger society
2. endangering public security
3. threatening state organs
4. the use of violence (self burning is a violence)
5. cause human casualties (himself and police)
6. assist the implementation of the above activities through any other means.

1. How does a person killing himself/herself (by burning, not suicide bombing, for which I could see the public danger) constitute a "severe danger" to society?
2. Self-immolation by a person does not endanger public security, because the person does not affect anyone except the suicide victim.
3. Not sure what you mean, because the "state organs" in China constitute the NPC, the President, the Supreme Court, etc. Suicide hardly affects those institutions.
4. I'll give you that. Violence is "behaviour involving physical force intended to harm someone", which could constitute the victim himself/herself. However, the illegality of the use of violence in the definition of terrorism is predicated upon the first three points as motivation.
5. I'm not sure whether the self-immolations are harming the police; I'm not familiar with the details of the cases.
6. Again, I'm not sure how many people are assisting in the self-immolations of the monks and nuns, but I'm assuming that they don't need much help in this.

Suicide has historically been treated as a criminal matter in many parts of the world.

Whilst it is technically true that a person who has successfully committed suicide is beyond the reach of the law, there could still be legal consequences in the cases of treatment of the corpse or the fate of the person's property or family members. The associated matters of assisting a suicide and attempting suicide have also been dealt with by the laws of some jurisdictions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation

We are talking about in China. US laws is irrelevant.

According to Chinese government those self-immolations monks and nuns were instigated by exil Tibetans to do it. When Chinese police arrived and try to distinguish the fire. They were stopped by other monks, so it is "assist self-mord" to me.

1. When one case after another happened it will danger the public and society for sure.
2. Not only affect the victims, also police, relatives, temple etc. Also consequence to the officials.
3. YOu don't see now it is affect the police already. They sent more police to Sichuan.
4. You are right. May be using violent is too harsh. Such self-immolations is a demonstration action cause instability to the society and they are keep on doing it as a propaganda campagne.
6. I am not sure either. But according to circumstantial evidence, other monks at the crime scene were stopping the police for rescue. Why exil Tibetan don't burn themselves to demonstrate against Chinese government instead instigate young Monks and Nuns ? Things to think about !!

Britain achieved world pre-eminence in commerce and finance in the 1760's, with the defeat of the French in India and N America... which we retained until the 1940's, when America swiped the mantle from us... the culmination of a process which began with the American Revolution in the 1770's

But for more than a hundred years, Britain and America were in a stand-off relationship with each other... like a couple of tom-cats yowling and hissing... daring each other to make the first move... until the Germans threatened to steamroller Britain... and the Yanks swiped the prize... which they retain to today

But Britain and America never went to war... after we settled the score in the War of 1812

Somewhere I came across the observation that it was the Jewish money interest that grabbed the British oligarchs and the American plutocrats by the scruffs of their necks and held them apart... America would go west, and Britain would finance their expansion... but America would not attempt to muscle in on the British Empire money machine

Hmmmm... China should beware muscling in on the American defence industry... Hmmmm

But it was commercial interests that kept America and Britain in line... We were natural enemies... Britain had it, and America wanted it... And America would not allow Germany to take it

What we have to see to now is, that China is staying opposed and reserved at the advances the Vatican is making towards China. After all, Chinas Atheist Society should continue to stay beautifully preserved and less aggressive as the Christians in Europe, America and the rest of the World.

'China is the world’s largest developing country, while the United States is the largest developed country. To build a new type of co-operative partnership between two countries like ours is a pioneering endeavor with great and far-reaching significance. There is no precedent for us to follow and no ready experience for us to refer to.'

Perhaps China and America more resemble America and Britain in the nineteenth century... when America expanded west, and Britain financed America's expansion

Well the difference is that America and Britain are and were very culturally similar countries. America was even the child of Great Britain. That was an exceptional relationship.

The USA and China on the other hand are culturally incredibly different. They are practically alien worlds. I'm not just talking about politics. Language, religion, economic model, history, general view of the world, are all so vastly different that it is and will be difficult for them to find common ground on anything except a purely transactionl relationship.